The firebrand Texan now stands revealed as having relied on a $1 million loan to fuel his successful 2012 Senate campaign.
A loan from Goldman Sachs — which happens to employ the bailout-bashing solon’s wife. Heck, the Cruzes took out another, smaller loan from Citibank, too.
It all looks perfectly above-board. But Cruz went from Princeton grad to Tea Party favorite in good part by posing as a tell-it-like-it-is guy, unbending in his principles.
Part of the shtick was a tale he told countless times during his Senate run: “Sweetheart,” he said he told his wife, Heidi, “I’d like us to liquidate our entire . . . liquid net worth, and put it into the campaign.” She agreed; the couple threw in “all we had saved.”
The cute story went over well on the campaign trail. Oops: Too cute by half.
“Slick Texas lawyer gets million-dollar loan from wife’s powerhouse New York bank” doesn’t have quite the same ring as his fine fable. And Cruz knows it — which is surely why he didn’t put the whole truth into his stump speech.
Adding to the embarrassment is the way Cruz bashes Wall Street generally and, just this week, slammed “New York values.”
That line aimed to get Iowa voters to contrast him with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. But it rings pretty odd once you know of his history with at least two big New York banks.
And the way he kept it quiet — while retailing a markedly different, cornpone story — isn’t so very tell-it-like-it-is.
So his wife worked for a big bank… before he had any influence to sell. And he got a loan… from the bank his wife worked for to finance his campaign. Then he campaigned against the establishment’s guy, David Dewhurst who was backed with GOP money. This violates his principles how? The loans were disclosed. Are you saying he didn’t also liquidate his assets? If he collateralized the loan with his assets, there’s still no conflict in his story.
As I read the story, Cruz DID liquidate his assets to fund his campaign and still had to float the loan… LOAN… which was borrowed against his own investment assets. I fail to see the big deal about it.
I had a brother-in-law (recently deceased) who was wealthy… especially compared to me. However, he was a regular guy. He liked hunting, getting dirty, working and did not flaunt his wealth. Did not flaunt it other than to have others enjoy his hunting and fishing facilities.
The point being that it is possible for someone to be wealthy AND actually care about people. This would be in contrast to how Hillary behaves, for instance. I do not begrudge anyone for being wealthy, simply for being more wealthy than I am sake.
As big a yawn story as Trump going bankrupt with money for casinos in Atlantic City.